Along with
the Civil Rights campaigns of the 1960s, one of the most divisive forces in
twentieth-century U.S. history. The antiwar movement actually consisted of a number of
independent interests, often only vaguely allied and contesting each other on many issues,
united only in opposition to the Vietnam War. Attracting members from college campuses,
middle-class suburbs, labor unions, and government institutions, the movement gained
national prominence in 1965, peaked in 1968, and remained powerful throughout the duration
of the conflict. Encompassing political, racial, and cultural spheres, the antiwar
movement exposed a deep schism within 1960s American society.

A small, core peace movement had long existed in
the United States, largely based in Quaker and Unitarian beliefs, but failed to gain
popular currency until the Cold War era. The escalating nuclear arms race of the late
1950s led Norman Cousins, editor of the Saturday Review, along with Clarence
Pickett of the American Society of Friends (Quakers), to found the National Committee for
a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) in 1957. Their most visible member was Dr. Benjamin Spock,
who joined in 1962 after becoming disillusioned with President Kennedy's failure to halt
nuclear proliferation. A decidedly middle-class organization, SANE represented the latest
incarnation of traditional liberal peace activism. Their goal was a reduction in nuclear
weapons. Another group, the Student Peace Union (SPU), emerged in 1959 on college campuses
across the country. Like SANE, the SPU was more liberal than radical. After the Joseph
McCarthy­inspired dissolution of Communist and Socialist organizations on campuses in the
1950s, the SPU became the only option remaining for nascent activists. The goal of the SPU
went beyond that of SANE. Unwilling to settle for fewer nuclear weapons, the students
desired a wholesale restructuring of American society. The SPU, never an effective
interest group, faded away in 1964, its banner taken up by a more active assemblage,
Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

SDS formed in 1960 as the collegiate arm of an
Old Left institution with an impressive heritage-the League for Industrial Democracy. Jack
London had been a member, as had Upton Sinclair, but the organization had long lain
dormant until Michael Harrington, a New York socialist, revived it late in the 1950s as a
forum for laborers, African Americans, and intellectuals. Within a single year, however,
SDS was taken over by student radicals Al Haber and Tom Hayden, both of the University of
Michigan. In June 1962, fifty-nine SDS members met with Harrington at Port Huron,
Michigan, in a conference sponsored by the United Auto Workers. From this meeting
materialized what has been called the manifesto of the New Left-the Port Huron Statement.
Written by Hayden, the editor of the University of Michigan student newspaper, the 64-page
document expressed disillusionment with the military-industrial-academic establishment.
Hayden cited the uncertainty of life in Cold War America and the degradation of African
Americans in the South as examples of the failure of liberal ideology and called for a
reevaluation of academic acquiescence in what he claimed was a dangerous conspiracy to
maintain a sense of apathy among American youth.

Throughout the first years of its existence, SDS
focused on domestic concerns. The students, as with other groups of the Old and New Left,
actively supported Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater. Following
Johnson's victory, they refrained from antiwar rhetoric to avoid alienating the president
and possibly endangering the social programs of the Great Society. Although not yet an
antiwar organization, SDS actively participated in the Civil Rights struggle and proved an
important link between the two defining causes of the decade.

Another bridge between Civil Rights and the
antiwar crusade was the Free Speech Movement (FSM) at the University of California at
Berkeley. Begun in December 1964 by students who had participated in Mississippi's
"Freedom Summer," the FSM provided an example of how students could bring about
change through organization. In several skirmishes with University President Clark Kerr,
the FSM and its dynamic leader Mario Savio publicized the close ties between academic and
military establishments. With the rise of SDS and the FSM, the Old Left peace advocates
had discovered a large and vocal body of sympathizers, many of whom had gained experience
in dissent through the Civil Rights battles in the South. By the beginning of 1965, the
antiwar movement base had coalesced on campuses and lacked only a catalyst to bring wider
public acceptance to its position.

That catalyst appeared early in February, when
the U.S. began bombing North Vietnam. The pace of protest immediately quickened; its scope
broadened. In February and again in March of 1965, SDS organized marches on the Oakland
Army Terminal, the departure point for many troops bound for Southeast Asia. On 24 March,
faculty members at the University of Michigan held a series of "teach-ins,"
modeled after earlier Civil Rights seminars, that sought to educate large segments of the
student population about both the moral and political foundations of U.S. involvement. The
teach-in format spread to campuses around the country and brought faculty members into
active antiwar participation. In March, SDS escalated the scale of dissent to a truly
national level, calling for a march on Washington to protest the bombing. On 17 April
1965, between 15,000 and 25,000 people gathered at the capital, a turnout that surprised
even the organizers.

Buoyed by the attendance at the Washington march,
movement leaders, still mainly students, expanded their methods and gained new allies over
the next two years. "Vietnam Day," a symposium held at Berkeley in October 1965,
drew thousands to debate the moral basis of the war. Campus editors formed networks to
share information on effective protest methods; two of these, the Underground Press
Syndicate (1966) and the Liberation News Service (1967), became productive means of
disseminating intelligence. In spring 1967, over 1,000 seminarians from across the country
wrote to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara advocating recognition of conscientious
objection on secular, moral grounds. In June, 10,000 students wrote, suggesting the
secretary develop a program of alternative service for those who opposed violence. A
two-day march on the Pentagon in October 1967 attracted nationwide media attention, while
leaders of the war resistance called for young men to turn in their draft cards. The
movement spread to the military itself; in 1966, the "Fort Hood 3" gained
acclaim among dissenters for their refusal to serve in Vietnam. Underground railroads
funneled draft evaders to Canada or to Sweden; churches provided sanctuary for those
attempting to avoid conscription.

Perhaps the most significant development of the
period between 1965 and 1968 was the emergence of Civil Rights leaders as active
proponents of peace in Vietnam. In a January 1967 article written for the Chicago
Defender, Martin Luther King, Jr. openly expressed support for the antiwar movement on
moral grounds. Reverend King expanded on his views in April at the Riverside Church in New
York, asserting that the war was draining much-needed resources from domestic programs. He
also voiced concern about the percentage of African American casualties in relation to the
total population. King's statements rallied African American activists to the antiwar
cause and established a new dimension to the moral objections of the movement. The
peaceful phase of the antiwar movement had reached maturity as the entire nation was now
aware that the foundations of administration foreign policy were being widely questioned.

As the movement's ideals spread beyond college
campuses, doubts about the wisdom of escalation also began to appear within the
administration itself. As early as the summer of 1965, Undersecretary of State George Ball
counseled President Johnson against further military involvement in Vietnam. In 1967
Johnson fired Defense Secretary McNamara after the secretary expressed concern about the
moral justifications for war. Most internal dissent, however, focused not on ethical but
on pragmatic criteria, many believing that the cost of winning was simply too high. But
widespread opposition within the government did not appear until 1968. Exacerbating the
situation was the presidential election of that year, in which Johnson faced a strong
challenge from peace candidates Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, and George McGovern, all
Democrats, as well as his eventual successor, Richard M. Nixon. On 25 March Johnson
learned that his closest advisors now opposed the war; six days later, he withdrew from
the race.

As with the bombing of North Vietnam in 1965,
which had touched off an explosion of interest in peace activities, another Southeast
Asian catalyst instigated the most intense period of antiwar protest early in 1968. The
Tet Offensive of late January led many Americans to question the administration's veracity
in reporting war progress and contributed to Johnson's decision to retire. After Tet
American public opinion shifted dramatically, with fully half of the population opposed to
escalation. Dissent escalated to violence. In April protesters occupied the administration
building at Columbia University; police used force to evict them. Raids on draft boards in
Baltimore, Milwaukee, and Chicago soon followed, as activists smeared blood on records and
shredded files. Offices and production facilities of Dow Chemical, manufacturers of
napalm, were targeted for sabotage. The brutal clashes between police and peace activists
at the August Democratic National Convention in Chicago typified the divided nature of
American society and foreshadowed a continuing rise in domestic conflict.

The antiwar movement became both more powerful
and, at the same time, less cohesive between 1969 and 1973. Most Americans pragmatically
opposed escalating the U.S. role in Vietnam, believing the economic cost too high; in
November of 1969 a second march on Washington drew an estimated 500,000 participants. At
the same time, most disapproved of the counterculture that had arisen alongside the
antiwar movement. The clean-cut, well-dressed SDS members, who had tied their hopes to
McCarthy in 1968, were being subordinated as movement leaders. Their replacements
deservedly gained less public respect, were tagged with the label "hippie," and
faced much mainstream opposition from middle-class Americans uncomfortable with the youth
culture of the period-long hair, casual drug use, promiscuity. Protest music, typified by
Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, contributed to the gulf between young and old. Cultural and
political protest had become inextricably intertwined within the movement's vanguard. The
new leaders became increasingly strident, greeting returning soldiers with jeers and
taunts, spitting on troops in airports and on public streets. A unique situation arose in
which most Americans supported the cause but opposed the leaders, methods, and culture of
protest.

The movement regained solidarity following several
disturbing incidents. In February 1970 news of the My Lai massacre became public and
ignited widespread outrage. In April President Nixon, who had previously committed to a
planned withdrawal, announced that U.S. forces had entered Cambodia. Within minutes of the
televised statement, protesters took to the streets with renewed focus. Then, on 4 May,
Ohio National Guardsmen fired on a group of student protesters at Kent State University,
killing four and wounding sixteen. Death, previously distant, was now close at hand. New
groups-Nobel science laureates, State Department officers, the American Civil Liberties
Union-all openly called for withdrawal. Congress began threatening the Nixon
administration with challenges to presidential authority. When the New York Times
published the first installment of the Pentagon Papers on 13 June 1971, Americans became
aware of the true nature of the war. Stories of drug trafficking, political
assassinations, and indiscriminate bombings led many to believe that military and
intelligence services had lost all accountability. Antiwar sentiment, previously tainted
with an air of anti-Americanism, became instead a normal reaction against zealous excess.
Dissent dominated America; the antiwar cause had become institutionalized. By January
1973, when Nixon announced the effective end of U.S. involvement, he did so in response to
a mandate unequaled in modern times.

References

DeBenedetti, Charles. An American Ordeal: The Antiwar
Movement of the Vietnam Era. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1990.

Garfinkle, Adam. Telltale Hearts: The Origins
and Impact of the Vietnam Antiwar Movement. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995.

Halstead, Fred. Out Now! A Participant's
Account of the American Movement Against the Vietnam War. New York: Monad Press, 1978.

Though the first American protests against U.S. intervention in Vietnam took place in
1963, the antiwar movement did not begin in earnest until nearly two years later, when
President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered massive U.S. military intervention and the sustained
bombing of North Vietnam. In the spring of 1965, "teach-ins" against the war
were held on many college campuses. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) organized the
first national antiwar demonstration in Washington; 20,000 people, mainly students,
attended.

As the war expandedover 400,000 U.S. troops would be in Vietnam by 1967so
did the antiwar movement, attracting growing support off the campuses. The movement was
less a unified army than a rich mix of political notions and visions. The tactics used
were diverse: legal demonstrations, grassroots organizing, congressional lobbying,
electoral challenges, civil disobedience, draft resistance, self-immolations, political
violence. Some peace activists traveled to North Vietnam. Quakers and others provided
medical aid to Vietnamese civilian victims of the war. Some G.I.s protested the war.

In March 1967, a national organization of draft resisters was formed; the Resistance
would subsequently hold several national draft card turn-ins. In April 1967, more than
300,000 people demonstrated against the war in New York. Six months later, 50,000
surrounded the Pentagon, sparking nearly 700 arrests. By now, senior Johnson
administration officials typically encountered demonstrators when speaking in public,
forcing them to restrict their outside appearances. Many also had sons, daughters, or
wives who opposed the war, fueling the sense of besiegement. Prominent participants in the
antiwar movement included Dr. Benjamin Spock, Robert Lowell, Harry Belafonte, and Rev.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Encouraged by the movement, Senator Eugene McCarthy announced in
late 1967 that he was challenging Johnson in the 1968 Democratic primaries; his later
strong showing in New Hampshire was seen as a major defeat for Johnson and a repudiation
of his war policies.

The Johnson administration took numerous measures to the antiwar movement, most notably
undertaking close surveillance and tarnishing its public image, sending speakers to
campuses, and fostering pro-war activity. Many administration officials felt foreign
Communists were aiding and abetting the movement, despite the failure of both the Central
Intelligence Agency and the FBI to uncover such support.

In 1965, a majority of Americans supported U.S. policies in Vietnam; by the fall of
1967, only 35 percent did so. For the first time, more people thought U.S. intervention in
Vietnam had been a mistake than did not. Blacks and women were the most dovish social
groups. Later research found that antiwar sentiment was inversely correlated with people's
socioeconomic level. Many Americans also disliked antiwar protesters, and the movement was
frequently denounced by media commentators, legislators, and other public figures.

By 1968, faced with widespread public opposition to the war and troubling prospects in
Vietnam, the Johnson administration halted the bombing of North Vietnam and stabilized the
ground war. This policy reversal was the major turning point. U.S. troop strength in
Vietnam would crest at 543,000.

The antiwar movement reached its zenith under President Richard M. .Nixon. In October
1969, more than 2 million people participated in Vietnam Moratorium protests across the
country. The following month, over 500,000 demonstrated in Washington and 150,000 in San
Francisco. Militant protest, mainly youthful, continued to spread, leading many Americans
to wonder whether the war was worth a split society. And other forms of antiwar activity
persisted. The Nixon administration took a host of measures to blunt the movement, mainly
mobilizing supporters, smearing the movement, tracking it, withdrawing U.S. troops from
Vietnam, instituting a draft lottery, and eventually ending draft calls.

Two long-standing problems continued to plague the antiwar movement. Many participants
questioned its effectiveness, spawning dropouts, hindering the organization of protests
and the maintenance of antiwar groups, and aggravating dissension over strategies and
tactics. And infighting continued to sap energy, alienate activists, and hamper antiwar
planning. The strife was fanned by the U.S. government, but it was largely internally
generated.

In the spring of 1970, President Nixon's invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State
shootings (followed by those at Jackson State) sparked the greatest display of campus
protest in U.S. history. A national student strike completely shut down over 500 colleges
and universities. Other Americans protested in cities across the country; many lobbied
White House officials and members of Congress. Over 100,000 demonstrated in Washington,
despite only a week's prior notice. Senators John Sherman Cooper and Frank Church
sponsored legislation (later passed) prohibiting funding of U.S. ground forces and
advisers in Cambodia. Many labor leaders spoke out for the first time, and blue-collar
workers joined antiwar activities in unprecedented numbers. However, construction workers
in New York assaulted a group of peaceful student demonstrators, and (with White House
assistance) some union leaders organized pro-administration rallies.

Despite worsening internal divisions and a flagging movement, 500,000 people
demonstrated against the war in Washington in April 1971. Vietnam Veterans Against the War
also staged protests, and other demonstrators engaged in mass civil disobedience,
prompting 12,000 arrests. The former Pentagon aide Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon
Papers to the New York Times. Meanwhile, the morale and discipline of U.S. soldiers
in Vietnam was deteriorating seriously: drug abuse was rampant, combat refusals and racial
strife were mounting, and some soldiers were even murdering their own officers.

With U.S. troops coming home, the antiwar movement gradually declined between 1971 and
1975. The many remaining activists protested continued U.S. bombing, the plight of South
Vietnamese political prisoners, and U.S. funding of the war.

The American movement against the Vietnam War was the most successful antiwar movement
in U.S. history. During the Johnson administration, it played a significant role in
constraining the war and was a major factor in the administration's policy reversal in
1968. During the Nixon years, it hastened U.S. troop withdrawals, continued to restrain
the war, fed the deterioration in U.S. troop morale and discipline (which provided
additional impetus to U.S. troop withdrawals), and promoted congressional legislation that
severed U.S. funds for the war. The movement also fostered aspects of the Watergate
scandal, which ultimately played a significant role in ending the war by undermining
Nixon's authority in Congress and thus his ability to continue the war. It gave rise to
the infamous "Huston Plan"; inspired Daniel Ellsberg, whose release of the
Pentagon Papers led to the formation of the Plumbers; and fed the Nixon administration's
paranoia about its political enemies, which played a major part in concocting the
Watergate break-in itself.